The federal government has generally supported "middle mile" Internet projects with its $7 billion stimulus funding—that is, projects that connect the Internet backbone to local anchors like schools, governments, and universities, which may in turn offer services to the general public. (This week's $400 million in new grants from NTIA reflects the "middle-mile emphasis.")

But the feds are also prepared to support direct end-user Internet projects that can show a compelling track record and evidence that they can secure other funding.

That's why 9,000-person Reedsburg, Wisconsin just picked up $5,239,168 from the US Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS is now run by former FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein) to extend its fiber-to-the-home network into the surrounding "rural area to provide affordable advanced broadband service to residents and businesses that are currently confined to traditional dial-up, wireless, and satellite services."

Reedsburg sits 15 miles away from Wisconsin Dells, a notorious tourist attraction and the self-proclaimed water park capital of the world. The city has a long track record of public utility work; it started offering electricity and water to citizens back in 1894 (when water rates were capped at two dollars a month).

In the 1970s, though, the utility faced "a series of large, wholesale rate increases. These increases were imposed by investor-owned companies that supplied the local municipalities with electric power. Determined to gain control over their power costs, the communities joined forces in 1980 to form WPPI Energy, the state's first municipal electric company."

This allowed the cities to exert more bargaining power by banding together, and the same determination to control its destiny led the Reedsburg Utility Commission to enter the cable/phone/Internet market a few decades later. The current network uses fiber optics to offer this "triple play" of services, and the utility says that 55 percent of city residents subscribe.

The utility currently offers 10Mbps symmetrical connections for $50 a month with no contracts or promotional pricing; 5Mbps symmetrical connections are $40. Now, that fiber network will be extended into the surrounding countryside, thanks to the USDA grant money and $2.3 million in private investment commitments.

In addition, the Marquette-Adams Telephone Co-op (not a public utility but a member-owned co-operative), which covers the rural area on the other side of the Dells, got $13 million in grants and $6 million loans to extend fiber throughout its service area. The Co-op has offered telephone service for more than 50 years, and it got into the Internet game in 1996. It has more than 80 miles of fiber laid already, but most of its Internet offerings deliver last-mile connections over DSL or wireless (DSL tops out at 3Mbps, while wireless can only hit an abysmal 512Kbps).

The story has become a familiar one: small rural telcos and municipal networks all see the value of fiber and are deploying it as fast as they can. Reedsburg's Utility Commission, for instance, says that dependable Internet has actually preserved the community.

"Rural living in Reedsburg has been made easier than ever, ensuring quality of life, accessibility to large metropolitan areas, and convenience of information, all while receiving the amenities of a large city. How you ask, has this rural community of 88,00 survived and flourished? Through the use of a Fiber Optic network, making it all possible."

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

77 Reader Comments

This may best the best article I have seen on Ars, thank you. The fact that millions of americans have no way to access the internet at decent speeds and be afordable goes way to un noticed. At my home which isnt even that "rural" there is no way to get broadband other than stupid satellite which gets capped after 5gb and isnt near what they claim speeds to be. I would like to know what barriers my state has (Tennessee) and see how those can be taken down. The internet is a utility and should be offered to everyone at a fair price even if the ISPS dont see a certain area as "profitable"

It has more than 80 miles of fiber laid already, but most of its Internet offerings deliver last-mile connections over DSL or wireless (DSL tops out at 3Mbps, while wireless can only hit an abysmal 512Kbps).

Why does the DSL top out at 3Mbps? DSL elsewhere can hit at least 7Mbits so are there some other issues in play with their DSL?

It has more than 80 miles of fiber laid already, but most of its Internet offerings deliver last-mile connections over DSL or wireless (DSL tops out at 3Mbps, while wireless can only hit an abysmal 512Kbps).

Why does the DSL top out at 3Mbps? DSL elsewhere can hit at least 7Mbits so are there some other issues in play with their DSL?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess "distance." My own DSL connection is nominally 5Mbit, but due to my distances from the nearest central office, I get slightly less than 2Mbit. Given that the town in question is part of a rural environment, "distance" seems to be the most likely answer.

It has more than 80 miles of fiber laid already, but most of its Internet offerings deliver last-mile connections over DSL or wireless (DSL tops out at 3Mbps, while wireless can only hit an abysmal 512Kbps).

Why does the DSL top out at 3Mbps? DSL elsewhere can hit at least 7Mbits so are there some other issues in play with their DSL?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess "distance." My own DSL connection is nominally 5Mbit, but due to my distances from the nearest central office, I get slightly less than 2Mbit. Given that the town in question is part of a rural environment, "distance" seems to be the most likely answer.

Yup. You can get up to 20M if you are close enough (or higher, with something like VDSL) but that's typically with a loop length less than 3000 feet or so. Beyond 15000 feet, 3M gets hard to achieve, and beyond 18000 or so, just getting sync becomes pretty challenging.

It has more than 80 miles of fiber laid already, but most of its Internet offerings deliver last-mile connections over DSL or wireless (DSL tops out at 3Mbps, while wireless can only hit an abysmal 512Kbps).

Why does the DSL top out at 3Mbps? DSL elsewhere can hit at least 7Mbits so are there some other issues in play with their DSL?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess "distance." My own DSL connection is nominally 5Mbit, but due to my distances from the nearest central office, I get slightly less than 2Mbit. Given that the town in question is part of a rural environment, "distance" seems to be the most likely answer.

Yup. You can get up to 20M if you are close enough (or higher, with something like VDSL) but that's typically with a loop length less than 3000 feet or so. Beyond 15000 feet, 3M gets hard to achieve, and beyond 18000 or so, just getting sync becomes pretty challenging.

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

If you have multiple people accessing the Intranet in your home at the same time this is very plausible.

In Colorado Springs, the utilities are pretty dog-gone low. My family of four usually racks up about 180 bucks a month. This includes water, sewage, gas and electricity. All provide by a municipal utilities system that has amazing customer service.

So if little'ol Colorado Springs, with their municipal utilities can kick private industry right in the nuts, I don't see why a public ISP can't do the same. Competition is a good thing, even if it comes form the public sector...on occasion.

It's so nice to read an article with a positive information about possible internet future, Nate thanks for this information. Compared to most of the past articles on this topic, this one is like a bright star on the dark sky.

So, it's not a totally lost case, maybe we can get some municipal broadband started in the Bay Area and move away from dark shadows of Comcast and AT&T. Hmm, that would be something to dream about...

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

The fact is we don't even know what is going to happen in 10 years. Right now we are starting to move towards getting a lot video over the internet, and people will want HD. Streaming games is now off to a rocky start, but in just a few years it could be a popular service. Who knows what people will think up, but if you stick with just 4mb they won't be doing it in the US.

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

Yes, and 640K should be enough for anybody (granted, that's a misquote, but the point stands). Ten years ago, the standard Internet speeds of today would have been ludicrous; ten years from now, 4Mbps is probably not too bad an estimate for the absolute minimum people might need.

It might help to know what exactly those categories on the mean. I looked it up and here's what the PDF (breaking-bb-monopoly.pdf, figure 3, Community Broadband Preemption Map) said:

Quote:

“Strict ban” states either ban “tele-communications services” or “exchange” services. This prohibitions make tripleplay networks impossible. “De Facto Ban” states effectively also outlaw community networks, but leave somecommunities with potential authority, however unlikely. States with “Various Barriers” range from strong barriers torelatively weak ones. We did not classify a simple majority referendum as a barrier for the purposes of this map.Visit the interactive map at http://bit.ly/bb-map

If you Google Institute for Local Self Reliance, there's a summary description and "Full Report" you can click on. No I'm not going to link it.

EDIT: LOL. Apparently the hyperlink followed in the document is what was linked on the main Ars article. Good stuff.

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

If you have multiple people accessing the Intranet in your home at the same time this is very plausible.

My point is that 4Mbps will let you do all of those things at the same time. You could have 3 x 480p video streams and still have leftover bandwidth.

It's a bald assertion that frankly makes no sense to me.

I say we sacrifice bandwidth for penetration and time (i.e, expand service faster). The difference between dial-up and 1Mbps is perhaps 10x greater than the difference between 1Mbps and 10Mbps. So let's get that to everyone, now.

This may best the best article I have seen on Ars, thank you. The fact that millions of americans [sic] have no way to access the internet at decent speeds and be afordable goes way to un noticed. At my home which isnt [sic] even that "rural" there is no way to get broadband other than stupid satellite which gets capped after 5gb and isnt [sic] near what they claim speeds to be. I would like to know what barriers my state has (Tennessee) and see how those can be taken down. The internet is a utility and should be offered to everyone at a fair price even if the ISPS dont [sic] see a certain area as "profitable"

FIVE GIGABITS per second???!!! TELL ME THAT'S A TYPO!!! I, myself only get one and one-tenth MEGAbits per second (and Verizon charges me $40/month for the privilege).

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

The fact is we don't even know what is going to happen in 10 years. Right now we are starting to move towards getting a lot video over the internet, and people will want HD. Streaming games is now off to a rocky start, but in just a few years it could be a popular service. Who knows what people will think up, but if you stick with just 4mb they won't be doing it in the US.

I think people loose context here. Obviously a 10Mbps connection is better than 1Mbps. HD video is better than SD. But we're talking about spending federal tax dollars to extend Internet service to areas where it's not profitable, so someone in rural America can watch HD video rather than SD or game in the cloud or something else that hasn't been invented yet.

If you think HD over SD warrants federal tax dollars, we have a difference of opinion.

I was thinking there might be a sane justification that Nate could point out. Or perhaps Nate hasn't thought this through too well.

This may best the best article I have seen on Ars, thank you. The fact that millions of americans [sic] have no way to access the internet at decent speeds and be afordable goes way to un noticed. At my home which isnt [sic] even that "rural" there is no way to get broadband other than stupid satellite which gets capped after 5gb and isnt [sic] near what they claim speeds to be. I would like to know what barriers my state has (Tennessee) and see how those can be taken down. The internet is a utility and should be offered to everyone at a fair price even if the ISPS dont [sic] see a certain area as "profitable"

FIVE GIGABITS per second???!!! TELL ME THAT'S A TYPO!!! I, myself only get one and one-tenth MEGAbits per second (and Verizon charges me $40/month for the privilege).

I think he meant that the total amount of downloaded data he could get was 5GB per month. I'm not seeing and actual bandwidth number in there.

This may best the best article I have seen on Ars, thank you. The fact that millions of americans [sic] have no way to access the internet at decent speeds and be afordable goes way to un noticed. At my home which isnt [sic] even that "rural" there is no way to get broadband other than stupid satellite which gets capped after 5gb and isnt [sic] near what they claim speeds to be. I would like to know what barriers my state has (Tennessee) and see how those can be taken down. The internet is a utility and should be offered to everyone at a fair price even if the ISPS dont [sic] see a certain area as "profitable"

FIVE GIGABITS per second???!!! TELL ME THAT'S A TYPO!!! I, myself only get one and one-tenth MEGAbits per second (and Verizon charges me $40/month for the privilege).

Pretty sure he meant overall bandwidth is capped after 5 gigabytes of data.

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

If you have multiple people accessing the Intranet in your home at the same time this is very plausible.

My point is that 4Mbps will let you do all of those things at the same time. You could have 3 x 480p video streams and still have leftover bandwidth.

It's a bald assertion that frankly makes no sense to me.

I say we sacrifice bandwidth for penetration and time (i.e, expand service faster). The difference between dial-up and 1Mbps is perhaps 10x greater than the difference between 1Mbps and 10Mbps. So let's get that to everyone, now.

Are you actually arguing against building fiber? Really?

What last mile technology is going to get you the "penetration and time" that you're looking for? Will that technology have as long of a life cycle as fiber?

I think it's more cost effective for muni's to build fiber than LEC's and ISP's since they can provide the ROW and most of the labor. They can also amortize the fiber asset over a longer time scale and give wholesale rates to ISP's that aren't based on ridiculous outdated tarriffs. Is this really a bad thing to put tax dollars toward?

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

If you have multiple people accessing the Intranet in your home at the same time this is very plausible.

My point is that 4Mbps will let you do all of those things at the same time. You could have 3 x 480p video streams and still have leftover bandwidth.

It's a bald assertion that frankly makes no sense to me.

I say we sacrifice bandwidth for penetration and time (i.e, expand service faster). The difference between dial-up and 1Mbps is perhaps 10x greater than the difference between 1Mbps and 10Mbps. So let's get that to everyone, now.

The problem with your thinking is that we can't just "get [1Mbps] to everyone, now.", it'll take time, and if it takes 10 years to do that, 1Mbps will not be enough in 2020, so then we have to spend more tax dollars to run 10Mbps to everyone all over again for 10 more years -- why not just run 10Mbps to everyone over the next 10 years?

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

If you have multiple people accessing the Intranet in your home at the same time this is very plausible.

My point is that 4Mbps will let you do all of those things at the same time. You could have 3 x 480p video streams and still have leftover bandwidth.

It's a bald assertion that frankly makes no sense to me.

I say we sacrifice bandwidth for penetration and time (i.e, expand service faster). The difference between dial-up and 1Mbps is perhaps 10x greater than the difference between 1Mbps and 10Mbps. So let's get that to everyone, now.

in theory you may be right, in practice at peak hours 4Mbps might not even be able to watch a youtube video. Not to mention not to mention you really need a slightly faster speed so that a buffer can be made. After all live streaming services aren't usable if the line is saturated and if it can't be done without buffering it's generally more annoying than it's worth. You couldn't pay me to give up my 20Mbps connection for a measly 1Mbps maybe if I was extremely broke I'd go for 4Mbps. I'd cancel my wifes cell phone before I downgraded, I'd cancel mine first but I don't have one.

Doesn't 480p refer to just a resolution and not the bitrate? if that's true then 480p could still take up a lot of bandwidth depending on how compressed it is.

I should point out that my 20Mbps can get up to 2.8MBps download rate which is closer 25Mbps, while my old 6Mbps cable connection rarely went over 200KBps which is only 2.6Mbps, so not all connections were created equally, i'd venture to guess that a 4Mbps is more likely fall under it's rated speed rather than over.

It has more than 80 miles of fiber laid already, but most of its Internet offerings deliver last-mile connections over DSL or wireless (DSL tops out at 3Mbps, while wireless can only hit an abysmal 512Kbps).

Why does the DSL top out at 3Mbps? DSL elsewhere can hit at least 7Mbits so are there some other issues in play with their DSL?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess "distance." My own DSL connection is nominally 5Mbit, but due to my distances from the nearest central office, I get slightly less than 2Mbit. Given that the town in question is part of a rural environment, "distance" seems to be the most likely answer.

Yup. You can get up to 20M if you are close enough (or higher, with something like VDSL) but that's typically with a loop length less than 3000 feet or so. Beyond 15000 feet, 3M gets hard to achieve, and beyond 18000 or so, just getting sync becomes pretty challenging.

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

If you have multiple people accessing the Intranet in your home at the same time this is very plausible.

My point is that 4Mbps will let you do all of those things at the same time. You could have 3 x 480p video streams and still have leftover bandwidth.

It's a bald assertion that frankly makes no sense to me.

I say we sacrifice bandwidth for penetration and time (i.e, expand service faster). The difference between dial-up and 1Mbps is perhaps 10x greater than the difference between 1Mbps and 10Mbps. So let's get that to everyone, now.

Are you actually arguing against building fiber? Really?

What last mile technology is going to get you the "penetration and time" that you're looking for? Will that technology have as long of a life cycle as fiber?

I think it's more cost effective for muni's to build fiber than LEC's and ISP's since they can provide the ROW and most of the labor. They can also amortize the fiber asset over a longer time scale and give wholesale rates to ISP's that aren't based on ridiculous outdated tarriffs. Is this really a bad thing to put tax dollars toward?

All above questions are rhetorical, of course.

If you're laying new cable it should be fiber. No question.

The majority of Americans we already have copper or coax running to their house which can get 3Mbps or better. A small but significant number of Americans are stuck with dialup or satellite. I'm suggesting federal dollars be spent running fiber or next gen wireless to these people (or at least to 99% of everyone).

That's a project worth undertaking.

But spending federal dollars to run fiber to someone who has 3Mbps DSL, I don't understand the justification. Maybe we need better backbone lines or more competition, so they can actually get 3Mbps at an affordable price, but that's a different issue.

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

The fact is we don't even know what is going to happen in 10 years. Right now we are starting to move towards getting a lot video over the internet, and people will want HD. Streaming games is now off to a rocky start, but in just a few years it could be a popular service. Who knows what people will think up, but if you stick with just 4mb they won't be doing it in the US.

I think people loose context here. Obviously a 10Mbps connection is better than 1Mbps. HD video is better than SD. But we're talking about spending federal tax dollars to extend Internet service to areas where it's not profitable, so someone in rural America can watch HD video rather than SD or game in the cloud or something else that hasn't been invented yet.

If you think HD over SD warrants federal tax dollars, we have a difference of opinion.

I was thinking there might be a sane justification that Nate could point out. Or perhaps Nate hasn't thought this through too well.

Why on Earth would you want a muni to spend the money on infrastructure which will be obsolete in ten years, rather than infrastructure which scales? Almost all the cost is in running the lines, not in what the lines are made of. If you're running the lines (to get the penetration you say you want), you'd have to be an idiot to deliberately run copper instead of fiber, since they cost essentially the same amount.

And once you run fiber, why would you deliberately set it up such that it can't be utilized?

We're talking about a project which is almost 100% overhead, with the marginal cost of the next megabit following a stepwise function - up to some number, it's effectively zero. Then the very next megabit costs a lot in headend equipment, but then the 10 megabits after that cost effectively nothing, etc.

Your implication that there is any meaningful cost difference between 1 Mbps and 10 Mbps is going to require more substantiation than "I don't want that much bandwidth, so no one else should, either."

sorry for the confusion I did mean that satellite internet will only allow you to download 5gb per month before they cut your speed back to dial up. Not that there speed is much faster than dial up to begin with even with the top package but it still makes no since to get it with that data cap.

I really wish the govt would start taking action instead of talking a big game. I have emailed everyone at the FCC, filed complaints with the FCC, Comcast, and even wrote my congressman. All pretty much seemed to care less that comcast was the only thing near where I live and how they refuse to build out.

Comcast's line is a mere 2000 ft from my house, they finally called me back with an estimate to run it to me, only $11,000 what a joke company doing the devils work.

While the FCC's National Broadband Plan only set a 4Mbps universal service target for Internet access (and in 2020!), cities know this simply isn't enough. The Internet is too important, and fiber is the future.

Could you please explain this? 1Mbps let's you stream decent quality video. 4Mbps would allow you stream video, talk on the phone, surf the web, and download music at the same time.

What exactly, beyond these things, is so important that we need to spend extra taxpayer to get? To get your downloads a few seconds faster? To get pristine HD video rather than 480p?

The fact is we don't even know what is going to happen in 10 years. Right now we are starting to move towards getting a lot video over the internet, and people will want HD. Streaming games is now off to a rocky start, but in just a few years it could be a popular service. Who knows what people will think up, but if you stick with just 4mb they won't be doing it in the US.

I think people loose context here. Obviously a 10Mbps connection is better than 1Mbps. HD video is better than SD. But we're talking about spending federal tax dollars to extend Internet service to areas where it's not profitable, so someone in rural America can watch HD video rather than SD or game in the cloud or something else that hasn't been invented yet.

If you think HD over SD warrants federal tax dollars, we have a difference of opinion.

I was thinking there might be a sane justification that Nate could point out. Or perhaps Nate hasn't thought this through too well.

There's a very sane justification: whenever you lay new infrastructure, you'd better lay new infrastructure that can scale well. Right now, nothing scales better than fiber.

There's an axiom in premise wiring that applies equally (or even more strongly) to municipal infrastructure wiring: install the best, most future-proof wiring you can reasonably afford. This is because every time you have to rewire, it's a significant expenditure that frequently requires damaging or outright destroying existing structures. In buildings, upgrading your wiring may mean tearing down drywall to drill access holes, run conduits, and pack intumescent gel through beams/studs/firewalls. Doing it citywide often involves rolling out trucks, digging enormous holes, and tearing up pavement (not to mention the risk of accidentally destroying existing infrastructure when you're digging). So whenever you install new wiring, you install something that you won't have to replace for a long time to come.

Beancounters often don't get this, because the future cost of having out-of-date wiring is not readily quantifiable. You have to think at least five years into the future, though, and it's pretty much a given that there will be bandwidth-intensive use cases that you can't even imagine at installation time.

Many muni-run internet projects have failed spectacularly, for various reasons. That's not to say they all have.

However, arguing over what layer 1 medium to use is utterly pointless. Various technologies will come and go, and make use of existing media, be it fiber, copper, wireless, etc.

Personally, I like the idea of the competition, but I do not like the idea of a .gov entity owning my access. What controls do we have in place for privacy or free access to content? Suppose your local muni decides that it's okay to put an obscenity filter on their peering point, and all of a sudden you lose access to pr0n? Who defines what 'obscenity' is? In a market where a subsidized muni offers low-cost bandwidth, it may not make sense for a commercial ISP to even offer services, and now you're limited. (yeah, yeah...slipper slope...I know, but it bears at least some scrutiny)

I've actually worked on a very successful muni fiber deployment, and it was a joy, because they were forward thinking, allowed all local businesses and homes to participate, as well as used it for the local .gov private infrastructure. A beauty to behold...except for the *enormous* price tag. To them, though, it didn't matter, because it was an extremely wealthy mountain town/county, without a lot of other options.

This may best the best article I have seen on Ars, thank you. The fact that millions of americans have no way to access the internet at decent speeds and be afordable goes way to un noticed. At my home which isnt even that "rural" there is no way to get broadband other than stupid satellite which gets capped after 5gb and isnt near what they claim speeds to be. I would like to know what barriers my state has (Tennessee) and see how those can be taken down. The internet is a utility and should be offered to everyone at a fair price even if the ISPS dont see a certain area as "profitable"

5GB is absolutely awful!!!! I thought Time Warner was bad with 40GB. 5GB applies to cellular and laptop mobile broadband, but should not apply to home service!! I do indeed hope your area can get better service in the near future, because 5GB doesn't cut it in 2010 and certainly won't in the near future, since everything is getting moved online.

Why on Earth would you want a muni to spend the money on infrastructure which will be obsolete in ten years, rather than infrastructure which scales? Almost all the cost is in running the lines, not in what the lines are made of. If you're running the lines (to get the penetration you say you want), you'd have to be an idiot to deliberately run copper instead of fiber, since they cost essentially the same amount.

And once you run fiber, why would you deliberately set it up such that it can't be utilized?

We're talking about a project which is almost 100% overhead, with the marginal cost of the next megabit following a stepwise function - up to some number, it's effectively zero. Then the very next megabit costs a lot in headend equipment, but then the 10 megabits after that cost effectively nothing, etc.

Your implication that there is any meaningful cost difference between 1 Mbps and 10 Mbps is going to require more substantiation than "I don't want that much bandwidth, so no one else should, either."

Yes, if you're running new cable it should be fiber. But the majority of Americans already currently have copper or coax. It's a question of using the existing wiring (for 3Mbps) or running new wire (for 100Mbps).

I'm saying the priority should be getting service to those stuck on dial-up ASAP.

The next question is whether we should spend other people's money to go from 3Mbps to 100Mbps. I'm fine with anyone spending their own money to watch HD over SD, but to justify tax dollars I want to hear why it's an essential service. Better looking movies isn't anywhere close to a good enough justification.